Making God a “Convenience”

Almost half of all Americans feel God’s love at least once a day, according to a new national survey. Eight out of ten have this experience at least once in a while. A similar number have felt God’s love prompting their compassion for others at least occasionally, with almost a third feeling this compassion daily or more often. Furthermore, the experience of divine love proved to be the most consistent predictor of six different forms of benevolent behavior studied in the research. Whether giving time or money, helping friends and family, or working to make the world a better place, the findings suggest that for many Americans, the experience of divine love and practical benevolence are inseparable.

I always have mixed feelings about this kind of study — or perhaps I should say, I have mixed feelings about the use religious believers tend to put it to. Often I have heard them say, “See? This proves that we should encourage Christianity, because Christians make society better and stronger.”

We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement but, failing that, as a means to anything — even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the grounds that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations’. You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason’. That’s the game.

If Christianity is good because it increases benevolence, what happens if someone comes up with a pill that increases benevolence still more? Not that I have anything against benevolence, or social cohesion, or orderly societies, to be sure. But it’s worth remembering that if Christianity is true then it’s true whether it brings about social circumstances we find desirable or not.

From a purely logical perspective you could say that any religion might have evolved naturally as a way to bring about desirable social circumstances, and that the surviving desirable circumstances have been selected for over the ages. It is that kind of observation that lends credit to the atheist viewpoint, or as I have come to understand it, a non-duelist philosophy, where there really is no good or evil, or at least no supernatural beings associated with good and evil. That is that religions anthropormorphisize good and evil as the intentions of supernatural beings, thereby discarding our responsibilities and religating the ultimate responsibility for our past, and our destiny to some higher beings. That should probably be considered a gift from atheists to the faithful; that we are responsible for our actions and intentions as manifested in the physical world and that punishment cannot be deferred and reward should not preside over our decisions. In return, the faithful might offer the godless solace, such that while they seek trueth in logic, that too is a part of human spirit, and accepting that, they can also accept the possibility of the supernatural, or spiritual at work. From there it would be a small leap in logic to accept good and evil entities and abandon the non-duelist philosophy.
Evil is easy to see, so we all know it must exist. Good seems to mainly be attended by those who subscribe to it and seek it out. So the question of whether christianity is true or not is less important than the desired outcome of perpetuating good over evil. The non-duelist might feel no logical reason to exist, no reasons to think or do anything beyond what gives them pleasure. No reason to endeavor. Christianity should probably endeavor to evolve towards the future and discard despairing philosophy, even if it is found in the word. The endgame may be foretold, but aint nobody reading about it.

Yes, and another tangent to this is the belief that if those dastardly Christians were just nicer people would love them and join them. Certainly we are sometimes neglectful of important virtues such as charity. Sometimes we are not as merciful as we ought to be. Methods do matter.

But, of all the questions I might have for the prophet Jeremiah, it is hard for me to imagine saying, “Sir, don’t you know if you had just been less sharp in your language, and more tolerant and nice to those in your culture that so many more would have accepted your message?” And it’s hard for me to imagine Christ was beaten nearly to death and nailed to a tree because he was just so darn nice (as nice is commonly understood today).

Christians engaging in culture are bound for stumbles and mishaps. They are certainly bound for difficult conflict. But we engage in culture because we believe Christianity is true. We are not just hoping to see someone saved to something but also from something. And we use all sorts of methods – hopefully as varied as those we find in scripture – and emphasize various things in various ways dependent on the audience, the topic, etc. There is room for folks like Pat Buchanan whose words jump from the page like fire. There is room for folks like Chesterton who enjoyed to poke people in the ribs and have a good laugh at the expense of poor philosophy. There is room for those like Lewis who (generally) take a more reserved approach, sneaking in the back door, if you will by disarming the audience. There is room for those like Mother Theresa, witnessing to the world not so much with words but with a way of life. We defend Christianity because it’s true. And during difficult conflicts or challenging times we should not assume that only a single certain temperament or disposition (that happens to align with mine!) is capable of helping the Kingdom.

Which is why your recent question to atheists–what exactly do you get out of being an atheist?–was pretty much beside the point (though I, among others, did my best to respond). We ought to value truth for its own sake, or not at all. And if Kant was correct that the essence of morality is that people must be treated as ends in themselves and never as means to some other end (like, oh, I don’t know, finding a terrorist mastermind), I assume the same holds true for God.

Alan: I was just pointing out that, Susan Jacoby notwithstanding, you certainly must realize that for atheists as for believers, truth is its own justification, not any ancillary rewards it might offer. And I did thank you previously for inviting atheists like myself to share the benefits of our non-belief.

I do have a question on this. I do agree it is dangerous to argue for Christian conversion on the basis that it increases benevolence. We should indeed convert because we believe it is true.

Yet, it is surely not improper to point out how frequently scripture talks about the blessings that flow forth from faithfulness is it?. In other words, I don’t think a Christian is distorting the picture when they argue that when a person is practicing Christianity (however poorly or meagerly) they are nonetheless more closely conforming to reality, and as more people conform to reality more closely, a greater degree of order will exist.

It seems it is a fine line between making the mistake of confusing blessings such as an orderly society as the reason for conversion rather than a likely benefit of conversion, making the mistake of pitting the primacy of truth against the benefits of truth, and seeing the two things in their proper relationship to each other.

Your point stands, but if we did find a society that was indeed predominantly Christian (i.e., conforming to truth/reality as much as any society ever has) and we discovered that this was producing disorder in the society, wouldn’t that give us cause to doubt the truth of quite a few passages of scripture, thus creating a significant set of problems for Christians?

Your point stands, but if we did find a society that was indeed predominantly Christian (i.e., conforming to truth/reality as much as any society ever has) and we discovered that this was producing disorder in the society, wouldn’t that give us cause to doubt the truth of quite a few passages of scripture, thus creating a significant set of problems for Christians?

I suppose that would depend on what sort of disorder was being produced!

If Christianity was a noble lie that led to a more benevolent society, then realizing it was a noble lie could kill the placebo effect. There would be social utility in believing the noble lie to be true.

Hmm, that makes me think about the Susan Jacoby post. Under what circumstances could atheism be a noble lie? In a world where Christianity was true, could an atheist noble lie ever have social utility?